Prognosis Of ‘Pro-Poor’ Budget

WHAT a vacuous and pretentious phrase this is.

For the past 15 years or so, the rich have been wining and dining in their sumptuous homes and on their farms; but suddenly they now have woken up from their stupor to the reality of poverty in Namibia. Thus, they are now able to come up with a ‘pro-poor’ budget.And the so-called experts on the budget, basically the same faces, year in, year out, have yet again joined the Finance Minister and her staff in this chorus, reading from the same hymn book – called the book of deceit.These commentators are selected on the basis of their support for the existing economic order and, therefore, no alternative voices or opinions are sought by the media.I was in Namibia in March and as I was reading and listening to the comments by the ‘experts’, I asked myself: haven’t I heard these lines before being repeated with such deafening monotony over the past 15 years? It’s like Finance Minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila has crowned her budget ‘pro-poor’ and everyone else has to call it that.There is no attempt, on the part of the commentators, to ask what that actually means in practical terms or in the broader ideological context.What Professor Andre du Pisani would term the struggle for authenticity or what the English historian Edward P.Thompson would call ‘the struggle to rescue ordinary people from the enormous condescension of posterity’.We have in our country today people who go by the names of ‘scholars’ or ‘academics’, but who are unwilling or, better still, unable to maintain a critical distance from what the politicians (and the system they uphold) say is the normal way.Many people have totally succumbed to what is.And what is, of course, is the unrestrained reign of terror unleashed by the market forces.In this exploration, I’m less interested in the analysis of the budget per se – less interested in the numbers and figures – but more interested in the ideological assumptions and presuppositions being made.I’m contesting and confronting the ideological presuppositions and practical assumptions that the very system that is pushing millions of people to the margins of starvation would, at the same time, be the one that would lift them out of their graves again.We are told that the emphasis, in this year’s budget, being ‘pro-poor’, is a repeat of last year’s budget theme, which was also ‘pro-poor’.The Finance Minister said in her budget speech: “The commitment to reduce poverty, create jobs and facilitate equitable opportunities for all remains central to all Government activities.”The priority areas along these lines are cited as education, health and social welfare spending.But haven’t these sectors been taking the lion’s share of budgetary allocations for some years now? And have they made any dent in the fight against poverty? And since when is a first-class education, health or a social welfare system only for the poor? Is not the very rich who have better access to most of these facilities? People talk as if there are free education or hospital facilities in Namibia.And what social welfare measures are we talking about when the pensioners are kept on a ‘petty-cash’ allowance of N$320 or when the unemployed have zero means of income because the Government is resisting the idea of a basic income grant (BIG) for the unemployed – even though this idea has been endorsed by some UN agencies, among others, as being a small step towards cushioning the poor against the harsh economic reality of our system? What welfare facilities are we taking about when hundreds of our students are unable to go to schools and colleges because of lack of money or for those who make it, unable to sit for their exams because of unpaid fees? Don’t get me wrong.I’m not dismissing the budget as being a useless stack of paper.It does have technical, political and economic value if used properly and in a context that is genuinely committed to equitable (not equal) distribution of the national resources.Government, however, is not interested in a humane and decent society – it’s a dog-eats-dog kind of system.One might say, hey, how about the tax relief for certain income groups announced in the current budget? That’s fair enough.But after granting the tax relief, the very system goes and lays a trap at the water pump or at those criminal land auctions conducted by the municipalities.It defies logic that people keep on talking about shelter for all by the year so and so as if houses are built on bubbles.Land, which is the basis of not only shelter, but basically almost all human activities, has been turned into a commodity for speculation by those who can afford those ridiculous prices – including some unscrupulous foreigners.And that’s why the proponents of BIG must also look beyond the monetary income and urge Government to do something really fundamental about the ‘runaway’ economy.Government has all the power to regulate the prices of certain commodities and resources that can alleviate poverty.The first on this list should be urban land and water.There is absolutely no land scarcity in Namibia.It is simply a structurally and ideologically induced scarcity.Above all, we cannot meaningfully address the problem of poverty unless we start to ask the fundamental questions.And some of those questions should be: who are the poor and how did they come about? People are not born poor.They are driven into it by multiple forces and factors – first among these being how society and its productive system are set up, organised and regulated.In the context of Namibia, the late Archie Mafeje wrote that the country needs to address four key issues: imperialism, the land question, structure of the settler economy and neo-colonialism.None of these are being addressed except at the most artificial level.These are the issues.Because given the very class structure of our system, it’s not possible to have a people’s or ‘pro-poor’ budget.Thus, they are now able to come up with a ‘pro-poor’ budget.And the so-called experts on the budget, basically the same faces, year in, year out, have yet again joined the Finance Minister and her staff in this chorus, reading from the same hymn book – called the book of deceit.These commentators are selected on the basis of their support for the existing economic order and, therefore, no alternative voices or opinions are sought by the media.I was in Namibia in March and as I was reading and listening to the comments by the ‘experts’, I asked myself: haven’t I heard these lines before being repeated with such deafening monotony over the past 15 years? It’s like Finance Minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila has crowned her budget ‘pro-poor’ and everyone else has to call it that.There is no attempt, on the part of the commentators, to ask what that actually means in practical terms or in the broader ideological context.What Professor Andre du Pisani would term the struggle for authenticity or what the English historian Edward P.Thompson would call ‘the struggle to rescue ordinary people from the enormous condescension of posterity’.We have in our country today people who go by the names of ‘scholars’ or ‘academics’, but who are unwilling or, better still, unable to maintain a critical distance from what the politicians (and the system they uphold) say is the normal way.Many people have totally succumbed to what is.And what is, of course, is the unrestrained reign of terror unleashed by the market forces.In this exploration, I’m less interested in the analysis of the budget per se – less interested in the numbers and figures – but more interested in the ideological assumptions and presuppositions being made.I’m contesting and confronting the ideological presuppositions and practical assumptions that the very system that is pushing millions of people to the margins of starvation would, at the same time, be the one that would lift them out of their graves again.We are told that the emphasis, in this year’s budget, being ‘pro-poor’, is a repeat of last year’s budget theme, which was also ‘pro-poor’.The Finance Minister said in her budget speech: “The commitment to reduce poverty, create jobs and facilitate equitable opportunities for all remains central to all Government activities.”The priority areas along these lines are cited as education, health and social welfare spending.But haven’t these sectors been taking the lion’s share of budgetary allocations for some years now? And have they made any dent in the fight against poverty? And since when is a first-class education, health or a social welfare system only for the poor? Is not the very rich who have better access to most of these facilities? People talk as if there are free education or hospital facilities in Namibia.And what social welfare measures are we talking about when the pensioners are kept on a ‘petty-cash’ allowance of N$320 or when the unemployed have zero means of income because the Government is resisting the idea of a basic income grant (BIG) for the unemployed – even though this idea has been endorsed by some UN agencies, among others, as being a small step towards cushioning the poor against the harsh economic reality of our system? What welfare facilities are we taking about when hundreds of our students are unable to go to schools and colleges because of lack of money or for those who make it, unable to sit for their exams because of unpaid fees? Don’t get me wrong.I’m not dismissing the budget as being a useless stack of paper.It does have technical, political and economic value if used properly and in a context that is genuinely committed to equitable (not equal) distribution of the national resources.Government, however, is not interested in a humane and decent society – it’s a dog-eats-dog kind of system.One might say, hey, how about the tax relief for certain income groups announced in the current budget? That’s fair enough.But after granting the tax relief, the very system goes and lays a trap at the water pump or at those criminal land auctions conducted by the municipalities.It defies logic that people keep on talking about shelter for all by the year so and so as if houses are built on bubbles.Land, which is the basis of not only shelter, but basically almost all human activities, has been turned into a commodity for speculation by those who can afford those ridiculous prices – including some unscrupulous foreigners.And that’s why the proponents of BIG must also look beyond the monetary income and urge Government to do something really fundamental about the ‘runaway’ economy.Government has all the power to regulate the prices of certain commodities and resources that can alleviate poverty.The first on this list should be urban land and water.There is absolutely no land scarcity in Namibia.It is simply a structurally and ideologically induced scarcity.Above all, we cannot meaningfully address the problem of poverty unless we start to ask the fundamental questions.And some of those questions should be: who are the poor and how did they come about? People are not born poor.They are driven into it by multiple forces and factors – first among these being how society and its productive system are set up, organised and regulated.In the context of Namibia, the late Archie Mafeje wrote that the country needs to address four key issues: imperialism, the land question, structure of the settler economy and neo-colonialism.None of these are being addressed except at the most artificial level.These are the issues.Because given the very class structure of our system, it’s not possible to have a people’s or ‘pro-poor’ budget.